How do you feel about sequels that don't change much?

Cthulhu · Post by **Cthulhu** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:13 am

This question brought to you courtesy of Resident Evil 5. I'm really enjoying RE5, but I've got to admit that it's pretty much RE4 with some tweaks. This got me wondering - when do you enjoy a sequel like this, and when does it start to wear thin?

I'm afraid I don't have a really good answer myself. I can name off plenty of series that have a lot of titles in them that, while they don't change all that much (most of the time), I always look forward to new ones. Zelda, Castlevania, Metal Slug, Gyakuten Saiban / Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, etc. I guess if there's enough fresh variations on similar content (eg: new levels, some new abilities, etc) I'll enjoy it... but not always?

At other times a sequel will come out that doesn't change anything and as a consequence it feels tired and overused. The first example of this that comes to mind is the Dynasty Warriors series, which most people enjoyed for a while when it first started, but now the series is largely reviled as being the epitome of stale.

Some games get a mixed reaction - like Mario Sunshine. I haven't heard too many "it was okay" opinions about it; most of the people I've asked loved it or hated it.

Any opinions?

EDIT: renamed topic since original title didn't fit

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:46 am

If somethings really good, there is no need to innovate much.

I'd rather have a sequel to a game I totally dig that's more like an expansion, then a sequel that's alienating me from the previous experience.

Of course no game is perfect so improvements can be welcome, just as long as the main gameplay and it's good points stay intact.

Experimentation with games that have a "proven to be popular" concept could be left for newer franchises or the like as far as I am concerned.

UnscathedFlyingObject · Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:23 am

RE2 played the same as RE1, but with much better everything. RE3 added a slew of improvements like branching story paths and new gameplay elements (dodging, shooting barrels, 180 turn, mixing.) RE5 adds a new coat of paint to RE4 and co-op, which is a hindrance for single players. It's a very solid game from what I've played but nothing stellar.

Sequels that add nothing new and are not markedly better than their predecessors are usually a disappointment for me.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:49 am

Well, the devil's in the details. There's clearly a difference between having the same mechanics and having the same (i.e. redundant) experience; probably the best example of that I can think of is Super Mario Bros. 2/Lost Levels - it may as well be an expansion pack for SMB, but it feels very different to play it because the level designs are so much more of a pain in the ass

.

I suspect that stuff like Super Mario Sunshine (and Wind Waker, for that matter) have more to do with people's expectations than with the game itself.

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:57 am

A sequel has to do SOMETHING different/new, but I don't usually want it to do too much. In general, I liked the original game, and in a sequel I want more of the same, but I also want a little something new to spice it up. It shouldn't feel just like a massive level pack for the original game. It should feel like the next logical evolution of the original game mechanics and design.

Great example: Half-Life to Half-Life 2. The gameplay of HL was based on puzzles and combat and the relationship between them. The combat was puzzle-like, even. And the game had a very scientific concentration. So, the logical evolution of that gameplay appears in HL2. The combat and puzzles are still balanced and meshed together in a great way. The new addition is a physics element to everything, which goes with the science theme of the gameplay. The puzzles now have a physics slant, and the combat has a physics slant (with the gravity gun), but the gameplay is STILL about the relationship between the combat and puzzles. It's STILL all about a "thinking man's" FPS. The core design and gameplay is the same, but with some small additions.

A bad sequel might be one which changes way too much, because often (not always) this ends up just alienating fans of the original. Example: Deus Ex 3. This isn't out yet but it has been confirmed that it'll be console-ized. Regenerating health, simplified controls and mechanics, a cover system, simple stealth mechanics... you get the picture. Fans of the original game will most likely hate the new one. The original has the following it does because of the complexity of the storyline, gameplay, everything.

It's also occasionally ok for a sequel to be identical to the original, except that the level design/story is just bigger and better in every way. Dodonpachi has the same gameplay features as Donpachi, but DDP has so many more bullets and the level design is overall very different that it feels like a much better game (to me at least). The changes made were VERY minor but also very important.

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:35 am

I don't mind a sequel that is based on the same engine as the first game providing the original was fun. I think many games might consider building further on existing game engines rather than trying to change games. The Zelda games for GB are classic examples. It is often nice to feel that a game has been furthered in a different direction. There is a sense of comfort when moving from the old to new.

Fenrir · Post by **Fenrir** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:45 am

Partially evolved sequels are good, but this is not the point of this topic right?
When I see games like Harvest Moon or Pokémon blueredyellowcrystalsilvergoldshit I always feel a shiver down my spine.
I can't stand sequels that are *clearly* copies of the previous chapters. Appearantly though, Japan sets the standards and they like it a lot.
So why apply changes to an already winning team?

Groan.

PC Engine Fan X! · Post by **PC Engine Fan X!** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:27 pm

Take a look at the classic Sega Outrun arcade game and it's sequel of Turbo Outrun. On the Turbo Outrun cabinet, the start button doubles as the Turbo Boost button when racing all-out. Same game with same graphics engine but a whole new Turbo Boost button functionality. Many early 1980s Japanese arcade games had sequels that added a new fangled idea or concept and an entirely new arcade cabinet with new sideart and front POP artwork was the norm for Japanese game centers back in the day. ^_~

Even the Konami shmup PCB of A-Jax supports either the traditional upright or cocktail type of Japanese arcade cabinets (via dip swtich settings) that were still common back in the mid to late 1980s.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

nimitz · Post by **nimitz** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:05 pm

To put it VERY simply

- If the game was great, then a sequel that doesn't change much is perfect.

-If the game felt like an nice idea with potential that wasn't really that well implemented/used, then a sequel that doesn't change much is bad...

Good example of great sequels that changed a lot : Metal Gear -> Metal Gear Solid (the first one).

Good examples of great sequels that didn't change much : Raiden Fighters series.

That being said shmup sequels are pretty much always a good thing and never change much; because of their nature.